The Indigenous Languages Act establishes the Office of Commission of Indigenous Languages. The act says this is not an agent or entity of the federal government nor are its employees part of the federal public administration.

But it is the Minister who recommends to the Cabinet, that makes the final decision on who the commissioner and directors are that will serve a five year term and any reappointments. Again, the Minister only has to consult with DIVERSE Indigenous governments and institutions in order to make the recommendation on appointments, removals or reappointments. If a commissioner cannot act, the Minister can appoint one of the directors to take the Commissioners place. It is the cabinet that decides on the salary of the Commissioner and Directors. The office must be in the National capital and if it is not, the cabinet must give approval of where it can be. The office of the Commissioner must provide a business plan and budget to the Minister and must follow the plan. They must also provide a report and audit to the Minister and the Minister must table the report in the House of Commons. Part of their report will be the adequacy of funding available for Indigenous Languages.

I would recommend if this Act was in compliance with UNDRIP, it would be an indigenous office, with officers appointed by indigenous people, and accountability to indigenous peoples. That would mean accountability to Chiefs, communities and other organizations. The mandate and priorities of the office would come from Indigenous peoples, not through federal legislation. While the Act may say that it is not a federal entity or an agent of the federal government, the reality is that it a creature of federal statute that is governed by federal Law and its powers and accountabilities come from that act. What I see, is if the Federal government is providing the funds, they want to structure the Office of Indigenous Languages the way they want. It is not indigenous self-determination, nor is it a distinct social and cultural institution as required by UNDRIP. The main control is with the federal government, not Indigenous peoples. The legislation should allow for a distinct institution governed by indigenous peoples. Money received could be accountable to the government, but it should be spent in the way indigenous peoples want to spend it within their own institution.

First Nation leaders in B.C. and Saskatchewan say resistance from several provinces and the Trudeau government’s recent cabinet shuffle are jeopardizing the federal Liberals’ planned child welfare legislation.

Leaders within the First Nations Summit in B.C., and the Federation of Sovereign Indigenous Nations (FSIN) in Saskatchewan tell APTN News they believe resistance from Saskatchewan, Ontario, and likely others, coupled with the removal of Jane Philpott as Indigenous Services minister and Jody Wilson-Raybould as Justice minister and Attorney General, are key factors in what could be the imminent demise of one of the government’s key promises to Indigenous peoples.

On Wednesday, FSIN published an open letter to Justin Trudeau telling the prime minister “if you can’t do right by Indigenous children, the most vulnerable population today… then there is no way your government can be viewed as having the political will to get any other aspect of the First Nations agenda right.”

quote:

Pratt told APTN Thursday that Philpott had indicated to Saskatchewan chiefs that giving First Nations jurisdiction over child welfare “was completely doable,” he said, in order to “get the jurisdiction of the provinces out of the way.”

Cheryl Casimer of the First Nations Summit in B.C. told APTN Wednesday that it would be “political suicide” for the Liberals “to table legislation that didn’t recognize full jurisdiction and authority” of First Nations.

“It can’t include any component in there that still allows for provincial oversight, because that’s the system that currently exists, and for some province’s that’s why they are dealing with high rates of children in care.”

Casimer, who is a former and councillor with the ?aq̓am First Nation, said any child welfare legislation that doesn’t give full jurisdiction to Indigenous peoples, and which doesn’t include adequate financial resources, “would be a waste of time because it’ll be rejected.

“First Nations just want to have that full jurisdiction and authority to operate child welfare systems based on their own Indigenous laws with no interference.”

Although there are many problems with the wording in every section of this bill, and there are many legal problems raised with said wording, I have five core concerns. First, there is no specific recognition of First Nation languages as official languages, nor is there a specific First Nation language right that is actually granted or recognized. The bill merely references rights “in relation to” Indigenous languages, but this could mean one’s personal right to speak a language versus the right to receive government services on one’s language, for example. Secondly, there is no specific recognition of First Nation jurisdiction or powers in relation to First Nation languages. The Minister of Canadian Heritage and Multiculturalism retains all powers in relation to the bill and any future regulations.

My third concern is that there is no specific or firm commitment in relation to funding. The bill provides that the Minister will “establish measures to facilitate the provision” of funding. However, establishing “measures” is not a direct commitment for a specific funding amount or a commitment to whom this funding will flow. This relates to my fourth concern, that the bill promotes a pan-Aboriginal approach that is not First Nation-specific and appears to put other broadly-defined “Indigenous groups” on the same level as First Nations. Under this bill, funds could flow to anyone who incorporated an organization and claimed to be Indigenous – despite their lack of status as actual rights-holders within a specific First Nation territory.

Finally, this bill appears to utilize the same federally-controlled legislative framework concept for rights definition, limitation and scoping. Trudeau already had to back away from the federal rights recognition framework already rejected by numerous First Nations and First Nation organizations. Of particular concern is the federal government’s intention to establish a “framework” that is intended to define, limit and determine the scope of the language rights to be exercised, how and by whom, by way of negotiated agreements. While the AFN and the Metis National Council have come out in support of the bill, the Inuit Tapariit Kanatami have been very critical of it, explaining that they feel Canada acted in bad faith, that is not Inuit-specific, and does not protect Inuit language rights.

"...In her testimony, Wilson Raybould explained that she held fast to her independence as attorney-general in part because 'the history of Crown-Indigenous relations in this country includes a history of the rule of law not being respected.' She had been a human symbol of the Trudeau government's commitment to reconciliation, and it's hard not to see her departure as equally symbolic..."

Ongoing concerns about coerced sterilization of Indigenous women is nothing short of a "crisis" that warrants a public inquiry, says a prominent Alberta First Nations leader.

In an interview, Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation Chief Allan Adam said concerns were brought directly to his attention by a member of his community north of Fort McMurray.

He fears others could have been affected, maybe without their knowledge.

"You see it — there's others in the community that appear to be having the same symptoms without nobody knowing why and nobody questions anything," he said. "You tend to wonder, was it done to them without their consent, without them knowing?"

A public inquiry is necessary to ensure politicians deal with the issue "once and for all," Adam added.

"I am deeply sorry in regards to what has happened," he said, aiming that message at victims.

Morningstar Mercredi, an Indigenous author from Adam's community who says she had a pregnancy terminated and her left ovary and Fallopian tube removed against her will in the mid-1970s in Saskatoon, said she hopes more leaders speak out.

"We are talking about our women and children," she said.

She also said she personally took comfort knowing her own chief was addressing the issue publicly, after she approached him about doing so.

"He took a stand in a supportive manner and I trust he will use his role as a leader in the most effective, proactive manner that would ensure coerced sterilization of Indigenous women is not permitted to continue," she said. "I think he's a good example."

The chief's comments come as the federal government tries to pull together officials from the provinces and territories this month to discuss the issue. Quebec has already indicated it is not willing to participate.

Stopping coerced sterilizations must be part of reconciliation efforts with Indigenous Peoples, Adam said, adding he wants to see the Liberal government act to amend the Criminal Code to make it a specifically defined crime. In December, chiefs at a meeting of the Assembly of First Nations in Ottawa also passed a resolution to politically support changes to the Criminal Code to explicitly criminalize forced sterilization.

"Mr. Trudeau has to come out and do what's right because this has been going on too long and somebody has to correct the problem," Adam said. "It is a violation of human rights."....

"I'm tired of the SNC/JWR news. Either way the initiative delivered by the Feds as framework, 10 Principles had JWR written all over it. Let's get focused on real issues - The Feds are implementing the framework in pieces via legislation/policy. AFN/NC exec complicit with Feds."

"The Trudeau government plans to impose a new termination policy by June 2019! These contemplated changes are unprecedented in both their scope and in their effects on the rights of self-determination, the Treaties and Aboriginal Title and Rights. They are giving the whole process only four months..."

On March 18, 2019, the UBCIC issued an open letter calling on each Senator of Canada to pass
Bill C-262, An Act to ensure that the laws of Canada are in harmony with the United Nations
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, without delay.

The UBCIC is calling upon our members, allies, supporters and friends to issue a similar letter of
support. We need to demonstrate to Canada’s Senators that we will not stand idly by while
Canada delays the recognition and implementation of the human rights of Indigenous peoples.

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, in Call to Action #43, called upon the
“federal, provincial, territorial, and municipal governments to fully adopt and implement the
United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as the framework for
reconciliation”.

Bill C-262 was passed in the House of Commons on May 30, 2018, with the overwhelming
majority of votes cast in support of the bill.

Bill C-262 must not be stalled in the Senate. With a looming federal election, there is a substantial and unacceptable risk that the bill may miss the legislative window.

Authored by Carol Muree Martin (Nisga’a and Gitanyow) and Harsha Walia with 128 collaborators, the compelling stories, rigorous research, and holistic recommendations within the 220-page report drastically and urgently shifts the lens from pathologizing poverty towards amplifying resistance to and healing from all forms of gendered colonial violence. We are honoured and thrilled to share the tenacity, brilliance, and warrior women spirit of Red Women Rising.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has been asked some pretty tough questions as of late, but perhaps none tougher than what Hannah Martin, who is from Tatmagouche, Nova Scotia asked Wednesday as part of the Daughters of the Vote in the House of Commons.

“... And so, when I hear the leader, yourself, speak about being a feminist, to me you can not be a feminist if you are raping the land. You can not be a feminist if you are allowing corporations to rape the land - because as indigenous peoples, that is our Mother. That is not a myth, that is not a legend, that is not a belief... that is fact, that is truth to us - she is our Mother. And so when you are allowing corporations to rape the land, you are allowing the continued violence against us - the indigenous women who are protecting a sovereign nation. Sovereign nations from coast to coast to coast. We belong to sovereign nations, and the Canadian government needs to respect that...”